tv [untitled] August 1, 2010 12:00pm-12:30pm PST
millions of dollars which is project generated and as a result of that balance, coming up with what we think is a pretty affordable housing plan. it's just in terms of raw numbers, you have close to 1400 affordable rentals, affordable residences at low and moderate income levels plus over 800 units of inclusionary home ownership at exactly the same levels that apply to the rest of san francisco. >> if i may, i'm still not clear on the answer because if this project is viable with the 50% inclusionary amount, then i think that i certainly would be supportive of that. but i'm trying to understand if it's viable along the lines that has been proposed.
>> it is not financially viable, 50%, and delivering all of the other benefits necessary to make this project work. and that was -- we spent years discussing that. it was probably the primary subject of the debate in process in g but also widely discussed at the pac redevelopment and planning commission. supervisor campos: and i also have a question that also relates to this in the sense that it goes to the larger question of what stages are acceptable for this process and -- president chiu: before we continue, i was hoping that we could hear a presentation from lawd sort of laying out what we have in front of us today and then i was going to ask the deputies to the attorney to advise us as to what we can do today and what we cannot. colleagues, if that makes sense, why don't we proceed in that fashion and i understand, i think supervisor daly would
have to slightly amend his amendment so it comports with what we're able to do today. why don't we start first with the presentation mr. cohen as to the various legislation we have to state the big picture and then i will ask our deputies to the attorneys to tell us what we are allowed to do today. i know a number of colleagues have amendments that they want to move forward today. >> sure. for the forward, michael cohen, director of the economic workforce development. before you today are the following actions. approval of redevelopment planned amendment for hunters point, shipyard and funding changes to the city's general plan and planning code and zoning map. approval of a number of process and implementing agreements, including an interagency cooperative agreement, tax allocations agreement, site specific amendments to the subdivision code and to the
health code and approval of land assembly agreements with the state lands commission as well as people findings supporting all of those actions. as was noted earlier, each of these specific items have been thoroughly veted at numerous public meetings over many, many months at the bay view pac, hunters point, the redevelopment agency commission, the planning commission and the land use committee of the board of supervisors among many others. the actions are relevant because they help implement the redevelopment of candle stick point and the rest of hunters point shipyard. collectively that redevelopment encompasses 10,500 residential units. more than 30% of which are affordable units as we've been
talking about. more than 300 acres of new parks and recreation areas and over three million square feet of job generating commercial and retail space. the plan -- and we talked about this before -- is the direct result of the very best kind of community based planning. at numerous hearings, it was noted that the bay view community asked for and initiated these redevelopment plans and for more than 15 years, the bay view community has overseen an incredibly thorough, transparent and inclusive dialogue about what should happen with these lands. probably the most important element of that community based planning process has been what we were just talking about which is to establish relative
priorities for key community benefits, figuring out how to balance community desires for affordable housing, including how much to spend on each. all while still preserving the basic financial feasibility necessary for anything good to happen as you say. through an ever broadening coalition of local business, community, nonprofit, faith based and labor leaders, this project has been designed to deliver one of the broadest and deepest community benefit packages in the country. chief among these public benefits are a massive investment in affordable housing, including over 1,300 affordable rental units targeted at low and moderate income residents, first ever program for real work force housing and the complete rebelieve of the public housing development. and the project includes the
largest parts improvement project in san francisco since golden gate park was built, including nine miles of new bay trail along a newly opened up southern waterfront, 10,000 new trees and more than 50 acres of sports and recreation areas. and massive transportation improvements that were significantly improved transit service for all of southeastern san francisco and 10,000 permanent jobs and over 1,000 construction jobs per year over the buildout of the project and over $80 million of private funding for workforce development, education, scholarship, health and wellness and other community and local economic development programs. transactionally the project and the project documents have been structured to ensure that all of the public benefits have to
be delivered in each phase of the project, not just at the end and proportionately along with the market rates development and regardless of the developer receiving a particular return. all of the benefits are delivered without any investment of general fund dollars and without any risk of the general fund if the project takes longer or economic projections are not fully realized. and as the economic analysis indicates, not only is the city's general fund protected but the project should add over $350 million each year to the city's economy. ultimately the key policy question before you is what do we stand to gain if we move forward with this process versus what we stand to gain or what potential problems we avoid but not approving the project. what we stand to gain is pretty
obviously. we create an opportunity for a huge benefit in southeast san francisco, for transportation improvements that the city couldn't possibly even in the best budget times fund itself. and it's worth noting here, we've had a couple of funds over the last 10 years while i've been around, we've had some pretty good economic times and almost none of that money made its way in creating or improving parks in southeastern san francisco. on a citiwide basis, we advanced good urban planning by directing new development and economic growth to advantage former industrial lands like treasure island, thereby relieving some of the pressure and growth on existing neighborhoods. what do we gain -- or what do we avoid if we don't approve the project? it's not clear that we gain or
avoid anything except in the realm of unintended consequences, the residents of alice griffith get more of the status quo with no real viable plan for rebuilding their homes and the residents of the bay view get more of the status quo with no real plans to offset decades of high unemployment and poor public health and a lack of the basic part of transit and retail amenities the rest of san francisco takes for granted. decades of doing nothing for these potentially useful waterfront lands have clearly not done any good for the bay view or defining the african-american populations or the city as a whole. now at least we have the opportunity to try something different and to offer hope and a viable opportunity so something other than just more of the status quo. so on behalf of all of the folks who worked so hard and so
long on this process, we urge your approval of these items. thank you. president chiu: thank you. and let me ask our deputy city attorney, if you can, describe for us given what's in front of us what is appropriate to amend. >> deputy city attorney cheryl adams. the approvals are before the board largely in approval up or downloads. the board doesn't have the board to unilaterally line item out or make amendments to the documents. if changes are what the board wants to achieve, then the appropriate approach would be to say to the department or to make a motion that the board will not approve various aspects of the project until the board is assured that other changes are made. those changes may be simple enough that the department, the agency and the project sponsor may be able to have side-bar and simply a degree to those.
they could come into the file and be in the file and ready for you by the time you vote on this at second read. the changes could be of the nature that there's so integral to the project that they simply couldn't be approved at the board today or the next few weeks that they would have to go through the departmental process, be reevaluated, perhaps go through planning so there's a spectrum of what can be done here today. we are all here and with everyone familiar with the project and i think that what we'll do is take your proposed changes as they come and try to advise you as best we can to the way to proceed and whether it's something you can do today or would need to try to do it in the future. i would also encourage you to speak with the department about some of the practical realities of the things that you may ask for. while we may be able to say that technically it's doable, we're obviously not involved -- we're not, you know, breaking
ground on the project. they are. president chiu: that. and colleagues, given that what i would like to do, i know there are a number of amendments coming. as we take those amendments in order, obviously have a discussion on them and vote as we go through so there's no confusion on the various motions out there. why don't we go to supervisor ross mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, mr. president. colleagues, i know that this is the last stop after what has been well over a decade long process. and i know those stake holders do have worked diligently to try to get it here, are anxious for it to get passed us. i want to first thank supervisor maxwell for her leadership in trying to and helping marshal this to this particular stage.
i want to thank all stake holders who have worked from the city, both from the community and from the business community to help make this, in their minds, the best project possible and i want to thank all the stake holders who are opposed or who have been apprehensive about this project, who have worked so hard to make this the best project as possible as well. the supervisor from the fillmore, i represent the fifth district and that should not be at all from this discussion. the first largest -- [inaudible] took place in our district known as the fillmore. for years as i was leading up to elected office which is one of the reasons why i did because i think of the wayward and misguided steps with urban renewal and redevelopment blessed by the city had allowed
in japan town. i vowed it would never happen again. i made that clear because it was important for people to realize in the community itself with the fillmore and the western division as well as citiwide, just what a fine distinction it is to live under redevelopment law. you ask many san franciscoans as the a2 project area or people even outside and they would not be able to explain to you very well that they're actually parallel governments that exist in san francisco as it applies to land use considerations. and because of those planned use considerations, there were consequences that i think provided both for positive and negative experience in the fillmore. it would demean anybody in japan town or anybody who has gone through it one time or
another redevelopment in history and not share any of the lessons learned in this particular project that's before us. what i found pretty amazing was that over the few years leading up to this particular stage when people would say to me, don't worry, ross. don't worry, supervisor ross. don't worry. this is not what happened in the fillmore. we're not going to use eminent domain in bay view hunters point. what a great consolation. you're not going to use eminent domain. on top of that, try to institutionalize agreements so it attempts to lift all vote. when i hear that's trying to allay concerns or multiply my concerns, that's not enough. and it doesn't satisfy them well enough. i think it's important that we try to, i think, navigate what
is obviously a very complex process that the city attorney has outlined for us. knowing very well that redevelopment law supercedes municipal law and that there's been examples that have come before us that even when we have exercised our legislative influence on this process and when we've given our blessing for projects on bay view hunters point or elsewhere, they unilaterally change after they have left the decision making authority of the board of supervisors because the way that redevelopment law operates allows for that superceding authority to take place. so i don't see why we cannot advance a proposal and advance it with the kind of considerations and conditions that make that proposal so the best of what the fillmore and japan town is for the future prospects of what this plan is
and that we do our best institutionally to make sure that the worst of what happens in the largest area which created that kind of negativity that we're still trying to, i think, correct is somewhat mitigated as best as we possibly can. for example, supervisor daly talked about affordable housing. when i look at the plan and when any of us looked at the plan, i think that it's important we see that there's no delineation of what is the percentage of the home owned unit -- units? we don't know that. it's important we have a more precise understanding. i think there should be commitments maiden forcable so that when the decisions are made, if there's any material changes to the plan itself, it comes back to the board of supervisors. nobody is saying the plan
shouldn't go forward. what we're saying is after the experiences a few years ago when phase one came before us, phase one came before us as an entire rental unit housing project. it survived the board of supervisors. it went forward. then unilaterally, and i said two weeks ago at 2:00 a.m. the appeals were put to bed, i said no one should we allow that phase one to come again. it was unilaterally hinged to condo without any recourse to the board of supervisors. that completely suggests a con descending role that this process may be if there's not at least some recourse that allows us the response when we spent that level of time and energy, when stake holders from all sides spend that kind of
level and energy and then they're just be able to go to recommission agency and commission and have a plan unilaterally changed. i've submitted a number of amendments before i. i believe that there's one that speaks to the example that i just expressed concern over. it's on the second page and this would be amendment where the phone language is added to section 11.2c and this would be to the i.c.a. and all it does, all it does is it gives us a role on the material changes only. if there are no material changes, then it simply puts the clock at 60 days. meaning if the board doesn't respond, there's no reason for it to come back. but at least this was handed out by the clerk, i believe. it looks like there's some saying they don't have it, but i believe you do. all it does is not withstanding
in the planned documents to the contrary, any materials changed to the buy low market change housing plan, the infrastructure plan, open space plan, the transportation plan or the design or development for the project shall be subject to the prior review of the board, city board of supervisors which the board of supervisors may give -- [inaudible] sole discretion. it should deem approved by the board have supervisors unless the board takes action to reject the proposed change within 60 days following the date that it was submitted to the board. we allow them to move forward completely. if plans substantially change, we ask for recourse of us at least having some response. it's that simple. and if phase one that occurred in this body several years ago does not teach us in order to
understand just how empowered this government is, then we'll never learn. just so we know, we're only one of several counties statewide where the board of supervisors is not the redevelopment agency -- or does not have some proxy power. most counties in the state of california have development agency power and i understand that was a decision made many decades ago and i think it's potentially worth revisiting so we at least have, i think, some equalizing level of engagement that could be considered later on. mr. president, i can keep going on amendments now but i thought that was relevant to the discussion that the supervisor daly had started. president chiu: what i would like to do, because i think there's going to be rapid amendments is consider each amendment, have a discussion and then vote on the amendment and then proceed to the next. otherwise we'll have 12, 14 amendments and there will be a
lot of confusion when we get to the end unless there's some objection to that. supervisor mirkarimi: some of mine are just very benign. others require explanation. president chiu: what i would like to do at this time, if we can go back to that and supervisor daly, vote on the material changes. supervisor daly: i was just going to reword my resolution. president chiu: why don't we go back to supervisor daly's motion and then to supervisor ross mirkarimi's first amendment. >> i still have questions on what we can or cannot do. supervisor mirkarimi: my understanding on my motion is that what we can do is condition our approval of plan on certain changes. so my motion would be to
condition the approval of the plan on amendments to -- [inaudible] and affordability levels that i outlined. >> i'm fine with that. at what point do i ask my questions about the overall scope of what we can do? now or after the motion? president chiu: ask at this time. although just to clarify supervisor daly's motion, it's items 12 to 14? if i can ask the deputy city attorney. if i could ask miss adams. if i could ask the deputy city attorney, would supervisor daly's motion be a motion with regards to specific items that we have on the calendar? i think we need to do that. >> let me make one clarification here. we have a redevelopment plan that is being adopted potentially by you today. we also have a bunch of plans and when people use the term plan, they need to be careful
what they're talking about. a bunch of plans attacked to a disposition and development agree many. -- agreement. we also have a contract between the city and the agency called the interagency cooperation agreement and that has the ability, when you approve some of the implementing contracts, the interagency cooperation agreement, you have the ability to approve the contract on some changes being made to those other plans that are attachments to the d.b.a. about the it is a contract so it requires approval of the developer and the agency in order to affectuate those. but we do not have the ability to condition approval of the redevelopment plans themselves. that is an up or down vote and if you don't like it, you vote it down and send it back to the redevelopment agency and the planning commission. is that clear? president chiu: supervisor david campos.
>> you can condition your approval of contact like the i.c.a. on conditions to the housing plan or the -- you know, the housing plan or the community benefits plan and those are attachments to the d.b.a. that's the agreement between the development and the agency, not the city. nonetheless, you have an interagency cooperation agreement between the agency and the city that says the city can help and do certain things to implement this project and in connection with your approval of that agreement, you can request changes to those other documents. supervisor mirkarimi: so with the item 12. >> but they would have to be approved by the developer and the agency. president chiu: do you have any questions? supervisor mirkarimi: da*irk supervisor campos: with all do respect to the city attorney's office, with respect to this project and the advice that has
been given either on this page or with respect to the environmental impact report, i will respectfully submit that the advice has been somewhat of a moving target. we have at different times been presented information about what we thought we could do and then it turns out that we actually cannot do what we understood that we could do with this item. a number of us raised a number of questions around the e.i.r. and were told that we couldn't make amendments to the e.i.r., that we could make -- that we could make the changes in the complexity plan but it depends on the amendments and as an attorney, i'm having a hard
time trying to understand what it is that is feasible and what isn't and quite frankly, trying to understand what the standard for determining the feasibility of an amendment actually is. we all have been handed copies of amendments made by president chiu and i guess the first question that i have for the city attorney is, why is it that some of these amendments can be made and yet there are amendments that also touch on some of the same issues that we understand now from the city attorney, those amendments cannot be made? so what is the reasoning that guides the legal advice? >> sort of reiterate what cheryl has said earlier. we have, you know, these project documents in front of
you that include zoning, redevelopment plan amendments, transactional documents. many of the transactional documents are not before you. they were agency documents. nonetheless, there's nothing that stops this board from essentially asking us what changes are permited and we can give you specific advice on that. what i think you're struggling with is there are certain changes that members of the board may want that are so sentimental to the project, that are already listed and included about many of these documents that may require that it's not a simple stroke of the pen. we remove it but requires things to go back to the planning department to determine whether or not there's environmental review to support the change and whether or not the sequel findings need to be changed. if those things need to be changed based on your motion of what it is that we want to
change, then we would advise at that point, your next step is to send it all back. it's not that you can't do it but you would have to send it back. there are some changes that you want to make that are consistent with the project that has been brought before you and those changes by incorporating sort of requirements of what authority has generally included in the project or creating enforcement recommendations that you can change but then they have to be approved by the other parties for those contracts. supervisor campos: i have no problem understanding that. the problem i have is the advice you just presented is different from the advice that has been presented before and that's what i'm struggling with. let's take an example. if you can please use this example as the way about finding the reasoning, you have an amendment you have along this bridge which has been